Ohio heartbeat law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
First of all, Nancy Pelosi uses the term "abortion on demand." Also, it's certainly anecdotal, but every woman I've known who had an abortion was either an unmarried teen or a married or single woman in her 20's - 30's who did not feel she could support another child at that time.

And are you implying these were third trimester abortions?

NO. Not sure where you'd get that idea.

We were responding to this poster at 12/11/2016 16:20 who said, "If a woman is already 20 or 22 weeks pregnant, she doesn't have that much longer to go all things considered.

For God's sake, abortions should not be allowed that late in the game.

The mother can hold on for another 10 or 18 weeks and then choose adoption.

I think what it really comes down to with abortion is - the mother just doesn't want to have a baby with the baby daddy.

I truly believe this. I think 99.99999% of women who are pregnant are happy to give birth and either raise the child or choose adoption.

But the problem for most of them who choose to abort is - they don't want to deal with baby daddy. They are disgusted with idea of him fighting for custody and/or them having to share custody forever with a guy they don't like anymore for whatever reason."

Which is all a delightful digression from the fact that the galling proposed law under discussion would ban abortion before many women know they're pregnant. I think at heart anti-choice people know they have a morally corrupt argument when they have to keep talking about fictional abortions by choice in the yard trimester.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

... No doc is merrily offing healthy term babies at Mom's behest.

...Not merrily, but doctors in abortion clinics due perform abortions at a woman's request.

At 38 weeks? Liar.

This response had nothing to do with late-term abortions.

This was all in response to the claim about "healthy term babies" in bold above. Babies are considered term at 38 weeks.

If the response had nothing to do with late term abortions, then the response shouldn't have been posted in a thread about late-term abortions (bolded. even moreso) without clarification.

I see what you mean and didn't read carefully--sorry for the confusion. Was initially responding to comments about abortion on demand.

No worries. Thanks for the clarification.

It happens, goodness knows. Hard to keep up with the threads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

... No doc is merrily offing healthy term babies at Mom's behest.

...Not merrily, but doctors in abortion clinics due perform abortions at a woman's request.

At 38 weeks? Liar.

This response had nothing to do with late-term abortions.

This was all in response to the claim about "healthy term babies" in bold above. Babies are considered term at 38 weeks.

If the response had nothing to do with late term abortions, then the response shouldn't have been posted in a thread about late-term abortions (bolded. even moreso) without clarification.

I see what you mean and didn't read carefully--sorry for the confusion. Was initially responding to comments about abortion on demand.

No worries. Thanks for the clarification.

It happens, goodness knows. Hard to keep up with the threads.

Thx!! And for sure re keeping up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
First of all, Nancy Pelosi uses the term "abortion on demand." Also, it's certainly anecdotal, but every woman I've known who had an abortion was either an unmarried teen or a married or single woman in her 20's - 30's who did not feel she could support another child at that time.

And are you implying these were third trimester abortions?

NO. Not sure where you'd get that idea.

We were responding to this poster at 12/11/2016 16:20 who said, "If a woman is already 20 or 22 weeks pregnant, she doesn't have that much longer to go all things considered.

For God's sake, abortions should not be allowed that late in the game.

The mother can hold on for another 10 or 18 weeks and then choose adoption.

I think what it really comes down to with abortion is - the mother just doesn't want to have a baby with the baby daddy.

I truly believe this. I think 99.99999% of women who are pregnant are happy to give birth and either raise the child or choose adoption.

But the problem for most of them who choose to abort is - they don't want to deal with baby daddy. They are disgusted with idea of him fighting for custody and/or them having to share custody forever with a guy they don't like anymore for whatever reason."

Which is all a delightful digression from the fact that the galling proposed law under discussion would ban abortion before many women know they're pregnant. I think at heart anti-choice people know they have a morally corrupt argument when they have to keep talking about fictional abortions by choice in the yard trimester.

You are out of your mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
First of all, Nancy Pelosi uses the term "abortion on demand." Also, it's certainly anecdotal, but every woman I've known who had an abortion was either an unmarried teen or a married or single woman in her 20's - 30's who did not feel she could support another child at that time.

And are you implying these were third trimester abortions?

NO. Not sure where you'd get that idea.

We were responding to this poster at 12/11/2016 16:20 who said, "If a woman is already 20 or 22 weeks pregnant, she doesn't have that much longer to go all things considered.

For God's sake, abortions should not be allowed that late in the game.

The mother can hold on for another 10 or 18 weeks and then choose adoption.

I think what it really comes down to with abortion is - the mother just doesn't want to have a baby with the baby daddy.

I truly believe this. I think 99.99999% of women who are pregnant are happy to give birth and either raise the child or choose adoption.

But the problem for most of them who choose to abort is - they don't want to deal with baby daddy. They are disgusted with idea of him fighting for custody and/or them having to share custody forever with a guy they don't like anymore for whatever reason."

Which is all a delightful digression from the fact that the galling proposed law under discussion would ban abortion before many women know they're pregnant. I think at heart anti-choice people know they have a morally corrupt argument when they have to keep talking about fictional abortions by choice in the yard trimester.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
First of all, Nancy Pelosi uses the term "abortion on demand." Also, it's certainly anecdotal, but every woman I've known who had an abortion was either an unmarried teen or a married or single woman in her 20's - 30's who did not feel she could support another child at that time.

And are you implying these were third trimester abortions?

NO. Not sure where you'd get that idea.

We were responding to this poster at 12/11/2016 16:20 who said, "If a woman is already 20 or 22 weeks pregnant, she doesn't have that much longer to go all things considered.

For God's sake, abortions should not be allowed that late in the game.

The mother can hold on for another 10 or 18 weeks and then choose adoption.

I think what it really comes down to with abortion is - the mother just doesn't want to have a baby with the baby daddy.

I truly believe this. I think 99.99999% of women who are pregnant are happy to give birth and either raise the child or choose adoption.

But the problem for most of them who choose to abort is - they don't want to deal with baby daddy. They are disgusted with idea of him fighting for custody and/or them having to share custody forever with a guy they don't like anymore for whatever reason."

Which is all a delightful digression from the fact that the galling proposed law under discussion would ban abortion before many women know they're pregnant. I think at heart anti-choice people know they have a morally corrupt argument when they have to keep talking about fictional abortions by choice in the yard trimester.

Exactly.

No NOT exactly. Nobody gets abortions at 22 weeks unless it's for a medical reason. What misogynist pieces of crap you are to say that women who have real concerns about health or existing children or their ability to mother abort just to not have to deal with the dad That's literally untrue. Not true. It's bullshit you made up in your dumb insulated heads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
First of all, Nancy Pelosi uses the term "abortion on demand." Also, it's certainly anecdotal, but every woman I've known who had an abortion was either an unmarried teen or a married or single woman in her 20's - 30's who did not feel she could support another child at that time.

And are you implying these were third trimester abortions?

NO. Not sure where you'd get that idea.

We were responding to this poster at 12/11/2016 16:20 who said, "If a woman is already 20 or 22 weeks pregnant, she doesn't have that much longer to go all things considered.

For God's sake, abortions should not be allowed that late in the game.

The mother can hold on for another 10 or 18 weeks and then choose adoption.

I think what it really comes down to with abortion is - the mother just doesn't want to have a baby with the baby daddy.

I truly believe this. I think 99.99999% of women who are pregnant are happy to give birth and either raise the child or choose adoption.

But the problem for most of them who choose to abort is - they don't want to deal with baby daddy. They are disgusted with idea of him fighting for custody and/or them having to share custody forever with a guy they don't like anymore for whatever reason."

Which is all a delightful digression from the fact that the galling proposed law under discussion would ban abortion before many women know they're pregnant. I think at heart anti-choice people know they have a morally corrupt argument when they have to keep talking about fictional abortions by choice in the yard trimester.

Exactly.

No NOT exactly. Nobody gets abortions at 22 weeks unless it's for a medical reason. What misogynist pieces of crap you are to say that women who have real concerns about health or existing children or their ability to mother abort just to not have to deal with the dad That's literally untrue. Not true. It's bullshit you made up in your dumb insulated heads.

I'm 15:14. I know it gets tricky reading these nested threads, but I'm pro-choice and not a misogynist piece of crap. Re-read the whole thing.

[Anonymous]

People don't get nonmedical abortions at 20 weeks in part because pregnancies are generally very hard to hide at that stage. It's been months of people asking when the baby is due, and asking about names, and sharing stories about their pregnancies. That's what women do. It's what families do, even poor families, and families without as much advantage or class as you. Even unmarried women hear congratulations about the pregnancy from the neighbors, and their aunts, and people at the store where they shop.

They are going to explain to everybody that there's no baby because they decided to abort it right before it could survive? Really?

If someone wants to get rid of a pregnancy because it is "inconvenient" -- and boy, that is a helluva range of meaning there -- they do it before they have to answer questions about it. Social disapprobation is huge for abortion, especially late term. Whether you think it should be or not, doesn't matter -- nobody gets through that with mild singing. Women don't seek it out unless they are beyond desperate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly.

No NOT exactly. Nobody gets abortions at 22 weeks unless it's for a medical reason. What misogynist pieces of crap you are to say that women who have real concerns about health or existing children or their ability to mother abort just to not have to deal with the dad That's literally untrue. Not true. It's bullshit you made up in your dumb insulated heads.

I'm 15:14. I know it gets tricky reading these nested threads, but I'm pro-choice and not a misogynist piece of crap. Re-read the whole thing.

(different poster, but I understood)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fact: A majority of late term abortions are a result of identified defects that are not compatible with survival. Why? Because many women have a 20 week scan of their fetus and it's in the course of this ultrasound - a process by which a doctor evaluates the development of the fetus - that deadly trisomies and/or congenital defects are found. Some of these can be identified through early chromosomal testing of the fetus, but not all (heart or brain defects that are not chromosomal in nature).

Imagine being a mom and dad and discovering that your child has, for example, Trisomy 18. Or had a serious congenital defect that would prevent the child to survive more than a few hours or days. This heartbreak would only be compounded if you didn't have a choice in whether to continue to pregnancy, a pregnancy that would last another 20 weeks, potentially and only extend an unspeakable anguish. Yes, of course, some parents choose to birth the baby ... And that is their choice. But I can't imagine preventing parents from making a choice to end the pregnancy and spare themselves - and the child - continued suffering.

Throwing this out there because late term abortions aren't "just" women who haven't been able to make up their mind about whether to have a child (though I believe that to be a legitimate choice), but often these are women facing the terrible reality that their child if not born stillborn will be alive for a tiny fraction of time and suffering.

A voice of sanity, thank you.

The other thing that needs to be said is that for some women nearing the end of their fertile years, an abortion of an ill-fated pregnancy at 20 weeks rather than waiting out the entire 40 weeks to deliver a still-born baby or one who will die within a few days allows a few extra months time to get pregnant with a healthy child. And those few extra months can mean all the difference. I know when I was going through infertility treatments every month that went by without the ability of TTC was agony as my biological clock ticked away furiously. This is the one reason I would have aborted had we gotten devastating news about the pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Ouch. I had a heartbeat at 9 weeks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People don't get nonmedical abortions at 20 weeks in part because pregnancies are generally very hard to hide at that stage. It's been months of people asking when the baby is due, and asking about names, and sharing stories about their pregnancies. That's what women do. It's what families do, even poor families, and families without as much advantage or class as you. Even unmarried women hear congratulations about the pregnancy from the neighbors, and their aunts, and people at the store where they shop.

They are going to explain to everybody that there's no baby because they decided to abort it right before it could survive? Really?

If someone wants to get rid of a pregnancy because it is "inconvenient" -- and boy, that is a helluva range of meaning there -- they do it before they have to answer questions about it. Social disapprobation is huge for abortion, especially late term. Whether you think it should be or not, doesn't matter -- nobody gets through that with mild singing. Women don't seek it out unless they are beyond desperate.

Oh please, it's super easy to lie and say the baby died in utero or "I almost died and they had to take it out", or there was something wrong with the fetus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ouch. I had a heartbeat at 9 weeks

That's the point. Should have gone to terminate before you even found out you were pregnant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don't get nonmedical abortions at 20 weeks in part because pregnancies are generally very hard to hide at that stage. It's been months of people asking when the baby is due, and asking about names, and sharing stories about their pregnancies. That's what women do. It's what families do, even poor families, and families without as much advantage or class as you. Even unmarried women hear congratulations about the pregnancy from the neighbors, and their aunts, and people at the store where they shop.

They are going to explain to everybody that there's no baby because they decided to abort it right before it could survive? Really?

If someone wants to get rid of a pregnancy because it is "inconvenient" -- and boy, that is a helluva range of meaning there -- they do it before they have to answer questions about it. Social disapprobation is huge for abortion, especially late term. Whether you think it should be or not, doesn't matter -- nobody gets through that with mild singing. Women don't seek it out unless they are beyond desperate.

Oh please, it's super easy to lie and say the baby died in utero or "I almost died and they had to take it out", or there was something wrong with the fetus.

To be clear, your take is that late term abortions of pure choice are happening all the time, and the would-be parents are lying, possibly having funerals and keeping up the facade of grieving? That is some powerful weed you're snoring. See also: anti-choice people are heartless. Please, never ever share your theory with a grieving mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People don't get nonmedical abortions at 20 weeks in part because pregnancies are generally very hard to hide at that stage. It's been months of people asking when the baby is due, and asking about names, and sharing stories about their pregnancies. That's what women do. It's what families do, even poor families, and families without as much advantage or class as you. Even unmarried women hear congratulations about the pregnancy from the neighbors, and their aunts, and people at the store where they shop.

They are going to explain to everybody that there's no baby because they decided to abort it right before it could survive? Really?

If someone wants to get rid of a pregnancy because it is "inconvenient" -- and boy, that is a helluva range of meaning there -- they do it before they have to answer questions about it. Social disapprobation is huge for abortion, especially late term. Whether you think it should be or not, doesn't matter -- nobody gets through that with mild singing. Women don't seek it out unless they are beyond desperate.

Except they do.
I was curious and did some researchand this is what I learned.
1. 3rd trimester abortions are rare.
2. There's not much research into 3rd trimester abortions.
3. The term "late term" abortion is vague and different people mean different things by it.
4. The evidence we have is that there are some 3rd semester abortions happening for reasons other than life of the mother/baby.

I am not sure why we need to double down on "there are no voluntary abortions in the 3rd trimester!"
It's false, but isn't it also irrelevent? Abortion is legal. Even if we were to make abortion illegal in the 3rd trimester, anyone who wanted an abortion would surely be able to find a sympathetic doctor to sign off on medical necessity and all 3rd trimester abortions would become medically necessary.